US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.

[Jawaid Bazyar]

Alan Bechtold wrote:
>Your "opinion" of current law doesn't matter. You can't ignore current law
>simply because you've decided you don't agree with it. We still live in a
>country ruled by the majority and current anti-trust laws will or won't be
>overturned if they are deemed by the majority of Americans to be no longer
>valid. Despite his size and volume level, Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily a
>majority.

We were supposed to be the first government of laws, not of men - but "the
majority" is now a justification for any evil act. I don't buy it, and
neither should you. And this has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.

>In my opinion, without some form of anti-trust laws, AT&T or someone like
>them would be running the entire show and there wouldn't be any discussion
>here about how we should allocate anything on the Internet. Personally, I
>believe current anti-trust laws protect businesses, especially small
>businesses, as much as they protect individuals.

People are scared to death to discuss pricing of their services on the
inet-access mailing list for ISPs, for fear of looking like they're
"colluding". That doesn't sound like "protecting small businesses" to me.

You forget that AT&T *did* run the show for many years - as a
government-supported monopoly. So, government-enforced monopolies are good,
natural monopolies are bad.

If, in the absence of anti-trust laws, AT&T managed to gain control of 95%
of the market - they'd have *earned* it. Every business is at the mercy of
their customers - if a person decides that a product is no longer of enough
value to justify the amount of money asked for that product, they take
their money elsewhere.  This is what history really shows, that no business
can become dominant (hell, no business can even exist) without the consent
of their customers.  "Big Business", aside from whatever undue influence
can be gained by buying legislators, are exactly like small businesses -
it's a voluntary association of people working together on a common goal.
The only difference is the size.  "Size" is often used as a wedge of
divisiveness, just like white/black, male/female, employer/employee,
manager/worker, are exploited - hatreds are created by manipulating fear,
prejudice, and envy, and used as political tools - and the result is laws
that chain one group to another.

Cisco owns over 80% of the router market. Why? They're the best there is.
They have earned their position, and their customers know it - and that's
why 80% of people who buy routers buy Cisco. That's what 'market share' is
- the number of people who *choose* of their own free will to buy a
product.  Why is it that this recognition of achievement, this recognition
by people of a great value, why is this called "against the public good"?

Anti-trust laws are evil because they chain businesses to a set of
non-objective laws that are self-contradictory.  You violate anti-trust if
you charge too little, you violate it if you charge the same as everyone
else, and you violate it if you charge far more than everyone else. You're
held as a criminal if you do so good a job that nobody wants to buy from
anyone else, being the best is held as a great evil. There is no way to be
in compliance with the anti-trust laws - whether you'll be prosecuted is a
function of whether you have friends in Washington or not, or whether you
annoy someone in Washington.

>Have they been abused and
>over-extended? Yes, if you ask me. Have businesses ever abused the consumer
>and attempted to dominate markets unfairly? I believe history would also
>show this to be true.

I have no idea what you mean by "unfair". Is it unfair that Microsoft
leveraged its wealth to enter the Internet market?  Is it unfair that some
on inet-access have leveraged their personal wealth to start up ISPs, when
others (like myself) started from scratch with literally nothing?  Is it
unfair that some companies draw the best talent, and other companies have
to make do with lesser talent?

I also don't know what you mean by "abuse the consumer". Why should anyone,
any one of us, ever ask less for our effort than what we can get? Why
should we sacrifice ourselves? Why shouldn't I set prices as high as the
market will bear?

>Laws protecting slavery are not current law. They were overturned by a
>majority of the American people and are no longer valid, thus your point
>isn't valid. It's your right to demonstrate in the streets against
>anti-trust laws, to write your opinions that they must be eliminated, to
>petition your government to eliminate them and to vote for people who
>promise to eliminate them. If you are successful, and enough people agree
>with you, they will go the way of the laws protecting slavery. For now, it's
>law.

What I was saying is that the mere fact that a body of words is "law", does
not morally justify it. Instead of cowering before Washington's power and
threats, we should do what is *right* - construct ARIN as it needs to be
constructed - and if what is *right* conflicts with the law, then the law
must change - and the majority be damned. Henry David Thoreau said

    "The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make
    the law free."


>IP addresses may or may not be a "national resource." There ARE national
>resources which must be protected. Whether IP addresses are limited enough
>and valuable enough to warrant such protection hasn't at this time
>determined. I believe that is precisely Mr. Bass's point. He believes IP
>address space is a national resource -- but at least he states it clearly as
>his opinion.

Protected - for what purpose? From whom? For whose use? Against whose
rights? 1/3 of Colorado is "national forest" (so-called "national
resource"). Instead of being used to make people's lives better, there it
sits, as a monument to the election campaign of some politician.

I don't want the Internet to become a political tool for some grubby
bureaucrat. But running to the government crying "anti-trust, anti-trust!"
will do just that.

>Note here Mr. Bass, based on his quotation of the code, was stating an
>opinion that anyone considering a move such as ARIN's should study this
>code. I, too, disagree with his statement that IP addresses are a national
>resource. As I said above, that is yet to be determined. But at least he
>stated clearly it was an opinion.

I don't believe in "opinions". You either state what you know to be right,
or don't say anything if you don't know. "Opinion" used to mean "this is
what I know is true"; now it's used to mean "The following words have no
meaning, please don't hold me to it, it's only an opinion".

>Again, note Mr. Bass is clearly stating an opinion. And his opinion even
>includes the wording that "fixing a price MIGHT be considered..." Opinion
>can be agreed with or not. Even better, Mr. Bass recommends an action,
>suggesting that a formal advisory from the Department of Justice and the
>Federal Trade Commission be sought. Followed by another clearly stated
>opinion.
>
>This could hardly be considered an attempt to weasel out of anything, as you
>stated, Jawaid.

He has stated that setting up ARIN is a violation of the "anti-trust" laws
- and the whole issue here is the money involved. A single, "monopolistic"
organization allocates IP addresses *right now*. Tim Bass isn't damning
Internic for this, only the ARIN proposal - because ARIN will charge for
something that NSI has been subsidizing up till now.

The only issue of any major import in these discussions is money - so why
shouldn't I think that Tim Bass' reason behind attacking ARIN with the
anti-trust whip is money?  That's the reason behind any anti-trust
prosecution - someone has something of value, and you want to get it
without earning it.

>I don't necessarily agree with all of Mr. Bass's opinions, Jawaid, but I do
>agree with his recommendation. Better to find out what the regulatory
>agencies think about ARIN's proposal now than have them come in after it's
>all set up and rolling.

Do what needs to be done - and if it conflicts with the closed fantasy
world that bureaucrats have constructed for themselves - be happy to tear
down their shabby little walls for them.

Going to them and asking their "permission" only legitimizes them. Should a
slave ask his master's permission before trying to escape? That says "You
have a right to be doing what you're doing."

>In my opinion, you would better serve the purposes of this discussion if you
>clearly identify your opinions. Merely believing something is true doesn't
>make it fact, even if you attempt to state it as fact.

This is an issue of epistemology - I don't believe in "knowledge" as
separate from "truth". Kant believed (much as Plato did) that people are
forever doomed to never be able to know truth, that knowledge of the world
around them is not in their power to posess - truth and knowledge to Kant
were separate, incompatible things. This view of our minds as disconnected
from reality has permeated the 20th century - but it's wrong, as every
achievement of mankind shows. We achieve because we *can* know and control
the world around us. If you want to attack the validity of your own
knowledge, I certainly cannot stop you, but please speak only for yourself.


>Alan R. Bechtold


--
 Jawaid Bazyar              |   Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
 Interlink Advertising Svcs |   for Small Business        (888) HYPERMALL
 bazyar at hypermall.com       |   P.O Box 641               (303) 781-3273
 --The Future is Now!--     |   Englewood, CO 80151-0641  (303) 789-4197 fax